Their target this time are Iraqi security forces. According to the Times, they’re underperforming:

MOSUL, Iraq, Nov. 29 – Iraqi police and national guard forces, whose performance is crucial to securing January elections, are foundering in the face of coordinated efforts to kill and intimidate them and their families, say American officials in the provinces facing the most violent insurgency.

The “American officials” are, of course, nameless.

“For those brave enough to come to work, “right now, all they’re doing is looking out the window and making sure the bad guys aren’t coming to get them,” said an American military official in Mosul, who did not want his name to be used.”

The nameless American military official is talking about Iraqi police, the weakest link in Iraqi security triumvirate of police, guardsmen, and army. But what of the army?

“American commanders praised the Iraqi commandos who took part in a battle to repel insurgents who attacked a police station here two weeks ago. But an American company commander who joined the fight, Capt. Bill Jacobsen, noted that of a force of slightly more than 100 commandos, 10 had been killed and 27 wounded.”

Notice the qualifier “but” when talking about the commando’s casualties. In a fight against fanatical terrorists where 37% of the Iraqi force were casualties why does the Times make it seem that this is a bad thing? Obviously, the Iraqi’s held their ground. And the American Captain had nothing bad to say about the Iraqi’s, just that they had suffered a large number of casualties. Why is this an example of Iraqi forces “foundering?”

“Given the weak performance of Iraqi forces, any major withdrawal of American troops for at least a decade would invite chaos, a senior Interior Ministry official, whose name could not be used, said in an interview last week.”

C’mon guys, give me a break! If we can’t train enough Iraqi police and troops in half that time to handle the job, one would have to start wondering how we got to be the most powerful military in the world. This “senior Interior Ministry official” is assuming that the level of opposition to the government would remain constant. Talk to the guy is 6 months and see if he says the same thing.

“Even where there have been apparent successes, there are complications. American officials in Mosul, for example, single out the 106th Iraqi National Guard Battalion as performing with professionalism. But in an interview, the battalion commander said half of his troops were Kurdish, not Arab.”

Isn’t that kind of like saying that half of an American battalion is from eastern states and half from the west? What the hell difference does it make? They’re Iraqi’s aren’t they?

“Marine officers here maintain that the police are improving. In the current military sweep, called Operation Plymouth Rock, an Iraqi SWAT team was given credit for a series of raids that rounded up numerous insurgent suspects.

But a different assessment was disclosed in a slide that one of those Marine officers presented at a daily briefing just as 150 new Iraqi police recruits were due to arrive by helicopter at an American base at 9 p.m., or in military parlance, 2100 hours:

“2100: Clown Car arrives,” the slide said, referring to the helicopters. “2101: Be ready for negligent discharges,” the entry continued, warning of accidental shots from the AK-47’s carried by many of the recruits. “Recommend ‘Duck & Cover,’ ” it concluded.”

Notice the writer goes from marine officers praising fully trained Iraqi SWAT teams to denigrating raw recruits. How can this be a “different assessment” of the capabilities of trained Iraqi police? What possible justification is there to juxtapose the two anecdotes except to deliberately denigrate our efforts and call into question the veracity of American officials?

This is a hit piece pure and simple. Par for the course from the Times.

What are the chances of terrorists using a nuclear weapon to attack America?

This is the question that keeps George Bush and other policy makers awake at night. Such an attack would represent the single most life altering, world shaking, nation changing catastrophe in the history of human civilization. Period.

Only the explosion of the volcano Thera 3700 years ago that destroyed several eastern Mediterranean civilizations would be comparable. That disaster was regional in nature. Given the globe straddling reach of the American economy, anything that would devastate America would cause untold suffering and upheaval in every country of the world.

According to Yossef Bodansky. the likelihood of such an attack has reached a virtual certainty. Bodansky, former director of the U.S. Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, said in an interview with the Jerusalem Post that all of the warnings we have today indicate that a “major strike Â– something more horrible than anything we’ve seen before Â– is all but inevitable.”

“I do not have a crystal ball, but this is what all the available evidence tells us; we will have a bang,” Bodansky told the Post, adding al-Qaida is “tying up the knots” for an attack.” (WND 11/29)

The belief by some that the “dirty bomb scenario” is more likely (the effects of which would be miniscule compared to a 10 kiloton detonation of a nuclear weapon) is hardly comforting. The scenarios involving the detonation of even a crude one kiloton weapon at street level in Manhattan at midday involve enormous casualties, devastating blast effects, and panic inducing radiation.

Nuclear Detonation Scenario Â—Event History

Day 1 Events

A truck carrying a small nuclear weapon (1 kiloton)is detonated in the down-town area of major city.

No specific warning of the attack was given.

Major disruptions of power, water, and other critical infrastructure.

Many buildings near ground zero collapse.

Radioactive materials begin to be deposited on the ground downwind of the
detonation over the next 24 hours.

Day 2 events

Emergency responders cannot gain access to areas severely affected by the
blast for several days because of high levels of radiation from local fall Â­
out.

Surrounding areas (more than 1.5 km from ground zero)do not have major
blast damage, however,mass panic ensues in this area and beyond from fear
of exposure to radiation and further attacks.

Some try to evacuate by automobile immediately following the blast, however,roads quickly clog with traffic from vehicles attempting to flee the area. Power restored to parts of the city outside the blastzone.

Day 3 events

Authorities slowly begin to regain control of the situation.Communications are
being restored. Roads outside the blast zone are still impassable due to abandoned vehicles.Inside the blast zone roads are impassable because of debris.

Most of the critical infrastructure essential to surÂ­vival of the population has
been restored except within the blast zone.

Refugee problem occurs because of people displaced by contamination the fallout zone.

Day 4 to year 10

Contamination of fallout zone may require relocation and decontamination. (Courtesy of the Rand Corporation)

That’s just the bare bones scenario. Some specifics would include refugee numbers in the millions, a breakdown in law and order that no army or National Guard units could deal with, a trillion dollar hit to the economy with a resulting job loss in the tens of millions, deflation, panic on a scale never seen…just about the worst parts of the bible you can think of.

And this is the best case scenario.

Imagine what the US response would be. Who would we attack? If the nuke came from Iran, North Korea, or even Pakistan, we’d be under enormous pressure—nuclear threat—-from Russia and China NOT to retaliate. Why? Fallout patterns from a US strike in all three of those countries would mean we’d be killing a lot of Russians and Chinese along with the perpetrators (not to mention friendly nations like S. Korea, Iraq, Turkey, and others). At the very least, nuclear tensions would skyrocket and we’d truly be “on the brink.” One miscalculation on anybody’s part and industrialized civilization would be destroyed, perhaps never to rise again.

It’s pretty obvious to even a casual observer like me that this scenario must be prevented at all costs. The loss of life, liberty, and property would be so great it’s doubtful that after emerging from such an attack, the United States would be recognizable to any one of us. And that’s something worth fighting to prevent.

The NY Times reports on Iran’s latest success in pulling the wool over the eyes of our European allies about their nuke program. Desperate to avoid a confrontation at the UN over the radioactive mullah’s efforts to build nuclear weapons, the allies gave Iran an open invitation to cheat on the recently signed agreement that had Iran promising not to enrich uranium:

“The breakthrough between the Europeans and Iran came after Iran suggested a change in the resolution that would more specifically reflect the positive step Iran was taking in suspending its enrichment program, both Mr. Mousavian and a senior European official said. In exchange, Iran abandoned its demand to operate the centrifuges for research.

Mr. Mousavian said the 20 centrifuge machines would not be sealed but placed under camera surveillance, a face-saving move that the I.A.E.A. said would be acceptable in terms of its monitoring capacity.”

It may be interesting to note that the North Korean’s nuke facilities were also placed under camera surveillance…which didn’t stop Kim & Co. from building their own nuclear toys.

Since the agreement was reached last Wednesday, Iran has gone back on some of its provisions three times; each time requiring the Europeans to scramble to save the accord before they were forced to go before the UN and declare Iran in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement. For the EU, this situation just wouldn’t do. After all, it would be rather awkward to develop trade and commercial projects in Iran worth billions of Euros if the mullahs were so impolite as to openly flaunt their violation of non-proliferation treaties.

It’s pretty obvious that Iran is pushing the outside of the envelope of this agreement to see how far they can go in violating it before the EU puts its foot down. Obligingly, the Europeans have let the mullahs walk all over them, taking advantage of the EU’s reluctance for confrontation.

As I’ve written before, the EU will use this agreement as a fig leaf excuse NOT to take action against Iran when it becomes necessary to confront the mullahs over their nuclear program. It appears that when this confrontation occurs—probably later next year—the US will once again have to go it alone.

And in other news from the Muslim paradise:

Chad Evans at Backcountry Conservative has an interesting post linking this AP story regarding some unusual recruitment efforts by representatives of the religion of peace.

Not content with building weapons of mass destruction, the mullahs recently held a job fair for terrorists. Specifically, they went head hunting for suicide bombers.

The twist on this particular recruiting drive is, like any good employer, the murderous thugs who currently rule Iran gave their top prospects a choice of working conditions:

“The 300 men filling out forms in the offices of an Iranian aid group were offered three choices: Train for suicide attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq, for suicide attacks against Israelis or to assassinate British author Salman Rushdie.”

And please use a no.2 pencil to record your answers…

Chad makes this excellent point:

Iran has been a spur in our sides inside of Iraq and nothing has been done in regards to this. The United States has let Iran continue to undermine Democracy in the Middle East without even as much as stern words. The Mullahs of Iran have a legitimate right to fear Democracy in the Middle East which is the main reason they have supported terrorism and people like al Sadr because they fear Democracy in Iraq will cross the border to Iran.

I have no doubt that part of the problem Chad alludes to is that PM Allawi can’t afford to antagonize Iran and has told Bush he’ll deal with the problem. According to Chad there are talks to close the border between Iran and Iraq which would help in stemming the flow of terrorists. But until the Iraqi people start getting serious about their own security, I doubt that much of a dent will be made in these suicide attacks on Iraqis and our own troops.

“In a somewhat ominous development, the AP’s Anna Melnichuk reports that Kuchma is calling for an end to the protestors’ blockade of government buildings in Kiev, calling it a “gross violation of the law.” In Kiev, Post-modern Clog posts that, “Everybody is buzzing right now about martial law.” To be fair, he also notes, “at this point it’s only a report of discussions and nothing more solid than that.” Still, Yushchenko now seems more cognizant of this possibility.”

How involved is Vladimir Putin in these maneuverings?

Logically, given Russia’s keen interest in maintaining the Ukraine as a buffer state between it and the west, Putin needs a friend in Kiev. But how far is he willing to go to secure that friend? This from “Time” (via Drezner):

“Sources well briefed on Kremlin affairs tell TIME that as protests in Kiev gathered momentum, Putin urged the much-discredited outgoing President Leonid Kuchma, eager to secure a safe retirement amid charges of corruption and political violence, to declare Yanukovych the winner. The sources say Putin made it clear that Moscow would not accept a Yushchenko victory. If the Russian President sticks to that hard line, it could provoke serious trouble, abroad and at home.”

Putin seems to be making the classic error that all despots make when confronted with authentic democratic movements; they think that military force can somehow put the freedom genie back in the bottle. By threatening marshal law, Putin endangers his relationship with Washington in a way that his crackdowns recently on the press and his grab for power from other Russian states does not.

The US was willing to let Putin off with mild (some would say too mild) protests regarding his recent consolidation of power. But Ukraine is a sovereign state that has recently tried to move closer to NATO and the west. Forcing his hand-picked leader down the throats of the Ukrainian people will provoke outrage both here and in Europe; especially “new” European states like Poland. Already, Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel have weighed in on the Ukrainian situation on the side of the protestors.

Can it get any worse? Yes:

“Regional leaders supporting Prime Minister Viktor F. Yanukovich, the embattled president-elect of Ukraine, pushed back firmly on Sunday against the opposition candidate’s quest for the presidency, signaling an intention for the eastern section of the country to seek autonomy next month if the political impasse persists.” (NY Times 11/29)

Secession would be an absolute disaster for the Ukranian people. If Putin were looking for an excuse to send in troops, there could be no greater casus belli for direct Russian intervention than civil war. If that were to happen, relations would cool considerably between Washington and Moscow just at the time when Bush needs Russian assistance more than ever in our war on terror.

It’s difficult to see at this moment how all of this is going to play out. If Putin is serious about not allowing the opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko to be declared the winner, the chances of violent protest followed by marshal law are great. If Putin allows Yushchenko to take power, will he then encourage the breakaway of southern and eastern provinces thus precipitating a civil war necessitating Russian intervention?

When I was younger, I used to read “Rolling Stone” Magazine religiously. It was (and I suppose still is) the bible for contemporary music lovers. It also had some of the best feature writing around. It’s political commentary was cutting edge stuff. Some of the legendary writers who cut their eyeteeth at the mag were Ben Fong Torres, Cameron Crowe, Hunter Thompson, and P.J. O’Rourke.

That’s why the magazine’s retrospective of the recently concluded election is puzzling. Why in God’s name did they get the opinions of three mossback’s like Ruy Teixeira and Peter Hart—two analysts deeply grounded in public-opinion research and rather passe in Democratic circles—and David Gergen, a man who’s undergone a transformation of sorts: From conservative intellectual to wishy-washy muddleheaded centrist.

Deacon at Powerline links to the article and calls it worthwhile reading. Perhaps…but to my mind, it’s more instructive for what they DON’T say.

Teixeira credits Bush’s increased appeal to white voters while Gergen points to closing the gender gap. Hart gives something of a cryptic evaluation, pointing to an obscure statistic that since 1912, “whoever has won a plurality of states along the Mississippi has won the presidency.”

Well, duh. For the record, these states are Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. My guess is (and some enterprising blogger who has a little time on his hands may want to look into this) that you could take ANY 10 states in the country at random and make the same claim.

Teixeira comes closest to getting it:

“The bigger question is: What do the Democrats stand for? Democrats in this election ran against Bush. Kerry’s program was never very clear to voters. They didn’t get where he was coming from. Democrats have to have large and good ideas that people can recognize—ideas voters can summarize in a couple of sentences.”

One of the funniest and most prescient books of the last 25 years was R. Emmett Tyrell’s “The Liberal Crack-up.” Tyrell’s book skewers modern liberalism by pointing to its horrific inconsistencies on everything from the environment to freedom. Published in 1984, the book, if anything, is more relevant today as it shows the left learning absolutely nothing despite the shellackings they received from Reagan and both Bush’s over the last 20 years.

Tyrell’s thesis—that liberalism doesn’t stand for anything, it stands for EVERYTHING—is what Mr. Teixeira is talking about. Liberals can’t condense their message to one or two sentences…how can you explain the unexplainable? Liberal incoherence is the reason Democrats keep losing elections and the reason they’ll probably continue to get spanked by Republicans at the polls. How can you reconcile extreme environmentalism with creating a business climate friendly enough for job creation? How can you be FOR individual liberty while advocating a suffocating brand of political correctness?

Democrats may be able to comfort themselves with the notion that if they adopt “values” as a meme for their campaigns, they’ll be competitive with Republicans. But, in order to have a value-oriented party, they’re going to have to reconcile the massive internal contradictions that cause most of us voters to scratch our heads in wonderment and say “just WTF is he talking about?”

David Limbaugh links to this Jonathan Chait article in the LA Times regarding Democratic prospects for 2008. It seems our friends from Moonbatville still “dont get it.” When your three most promising prospects are a raving loon, a brain-dead stiff, and a wonkish harridan, it may be time to pass the kool-aid and commit an existential form of hari-kari. Here’s Limbaugh’s take on Dean:

“As for Howard Dean, Chait correctly argues that Dean is a mistake because he fires up the Democratic base and only the base, which isn’t enough to win the election…The base we’re talking about here, folks, is largely the antiwar crowd. Despite Kerry’s many “winks and nods,” the base was probably never really secure in their hope that Kerry would carry their antiwar water when he was promising, essentially, to do just the opposite.”

Limbaugh correctly points to the base being certified members of the conspiracy muck-mucks at the Democratic Underground whose looniness has been well documented on this and other more rational sites. It should go without saying that rationality and the “anti-war base” are mutually exclusive terms since the moonbats aren’t only anti-war; they’re also anti-globalization, anti-capitalist, anti-western civilization, and anti-anything-that-would-make-life-easier-and-safer-for-a majority-of-human-beings-on-the-planet. In short, they’re luddites (“one who is opposed to especially technological change”).

What about the Senator from Viet Nam?

“Chait is also correct that Kerry would be a disaster in 2008. Who knows, by that time Kerry might even be forced, by the continuous rise of the New Media, to sign form 180 to release his military records. That would end his dreams. Beyond that, Kerry was always a default candidate running on an ever-uncertain, shifting platform whose only common denominator was his narcissistic desire to become president—not for what he could do for the country, but for what he could do for John Kerry.”

Spot on. Someone is going to get a hold of those records in the next couple of years and write a book. And when it comes out that Kerry was in fact a willing accomplice to the murderous thugs of North Viet Nam by coordinating the activities of his anti-war group in America with the enemies of the United States, it will end his life-long pursuit of power.

And what of the Wicked Witch of the East? Whither Hillary?

“To me, her problem is that she is every bit as liberal as people believe/fear she is and is only pretending not to be to position herself. So she represents the worst of all worlds: an extreme liberal—a quasi-socialist actually—and a fraud. Like John Kerry, she simply won’t be candid about who she is. Will she be wearing a Yankees Cap in 2008 or one with a U.S. Flag?”

Republicans should be salivating at the prospect of a Hillary run in 2008. Can you imagine how much money could be raised by every Republican running for office from dog catcher to President? And Hillary may have her own “problems.” The Marc Rich pardon by her husband may come back to haunt her as Rich, along with several other prominent Democrats, are under investigation for campaign finance irregularities connected with her run for the Senate in 2000. This, however, may hurt her more in her Senate run in 2006 than in a run for the top spot in 2008.

The real problem with Hillary is her participation in the longest running and weirdest soap opera in American political history; her on again off again relationship with The Great Oxygen Sucker, the Gigantic Egotistical Attention Seeker, the Great Philanderer, her husband Bill.

I’d personally love to see Hilly get the nod in 2008. Just to see them on stage at the Democratic Convention would be worth all of the fawning, nauseating, breathless media attention these two low-life pond scum, vomit bags would get. And wouldn’t you just LOVE to see the the harridan’s face the first time someone suggests that Bill is getting more attention than her? She may put the “Dean Scream” to shame if some poor, unsuspecting reporter were to ask.

Anything can happen between now and the next Presidential campaign. All we can do is pray that the Democrats stay as totally clueless as they are now. If these three lickspittles are the best they can come up with, the obituary writers of the Democratic party would be wise to get a jump on the competition and start scribbling now.

After a decade of Russian domination of its politics, the breadbasket of the old Soviet Union is beginning to find its own voice. The people have not only taken to the streets, but in tactics reminiscent of the best of the peaceful demonstrations in Eastern Europe leading up to the fall of communism, they have taken over key strategic locations in that nation’s capitol, Kiev:

1. The reformers have occupied not only the old Lenin Library, but also the first floor of the mayor’s offices, and the Oktabarskaya Palace. This has all been done legally, with the support of the mayor of Kiev, Omelchenko. He’s thrown in with us unreservedly, which is a huge boost.

2. There are small delegations from several foreign countries here supporting us. The Georgians are here in force, as well as the Belorussians—two countries which have suffered from similar governance to Ukraine’s. A mad Irishman was running around chanting this evening, and I saw an African man carrying his national flag. A Bangladeshi girl shared a table with us at McDonald’s tonight. (HT: Powerline)

Outside of Poland, there has been no sadder national story on the European continent than that of an independent Ukraine. Occupied at one time or another by Poland, Lithuania, Austria under the Hapsburgs, and finally Stalin’s Russia, the fiercely nationalistic Ukrainians have suffered one barbarity after another including the deliberate starvation of more than 5 million of its extremely productive peasant class in the early 1930’s.

Russia has always viewed the Ukraine as a buffer state, protecting it from invasion first from Poland in the 18th and 19th centuries and later Germany. And now, Russian President Vladimir Putin is going to have to learn to let go.

The recent elections in which reformist candidate Viktor Yushchenko ran on a pro-nationalistic platform was apparently rigged in favor of Mr. Putin’s hand picked choice Viktor Yanukovych. In today’s WA Times the story makes clear that even the Ukrainian courts (not especially known for their independence) may be siding with the reformists:

“The Supreme Court stopped the Central Election Commission from publishing the results of the vote until the opposition’s legal challenges are reviewed.”

Court spokeswoman Liana Shlyaposhnikova said the appeal would be considered on Monday. “This is only the beginning,” a triumphant opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko told a crowd of 100,000 people gathered in downtown Kiev in praising the court’s decision.”

The opposition has charged that massive vote fraud occurred, especially in the Russian dominated southern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk, which largely handed Mr. Yanukovych a victory.

The United States and European Union have refused to recognize the election results, charging that the election did not conform to international standards.

President Putin has warned the west to stay out of the controversy. This may be difficult due to the Ukraine’s status as a friend of NATO.

“I don’t want my children to be ashamed of me when they ask me if I did something, and I didn’t,” said Volodymyr Petrenko, the owner of a BMW repair shop who volunteered his time to the opposition to maintain security on the plaza. “I’ve been here since Sunday. Now my friends are also here.”

With that kind of attitude on the part of the protestors, a showdown may be coming. And while Putin has made noises about allowing the Ukrainian people and courts to settle the election dispute, it remains to be seen whether Putin will actually allow a government as independent-minded as Mr. Yushchenko’s reformist party. No troop movements from Russia have been reported as yet and apparently, even some Ukrainian security forces may be on the side of the protestors:

“Demonstrations have so far been peaceful. Mr. Yushchenko seemed to win a major victory yesterday, when a number of officers from Ukraine’s security services, heirs of the Soviet KGB, appeared before demonstrators, pledging their support and calling on their colleagues to be restrained.”

President Putin is in a very difficult position. His government is becoming more and more authoritarian as he seeks to consolidate power in order to deal with Russia’s massive economic, social, and security problems. On the other hand, Putin desperately needs western assistance to modernize his country’s infrastructure and keep the flow of capital coming into his creaking economy. He can’t afford to alienate the west. Can he afford a truly independent Ukraine?

Before it’s over, Putin will probably have to let go of the Ukraine. But I would guess it won’t happen before he makes an effort to intimidate the protestors and the west into capitulating.

“Zbigniew Brzezinski [President Carter’s Polish-born National Security Adviser and nowadays an international affairs pundit], his sons, and the Polish government have created an Ukrainian opposition leader and promoted Yushchenko into that role, in order to prevent further integration of the European Union!”

“So says, Sergei Markov, well-known political scientists and director of the Institute of Political Studies in Moscow.”

What makes this less than funny is that evidently, Comrade Markov’s institute is closely allied with Russian President Vladimir Putin. According to Arthur:

” This post describes the Institute of Political Studies as “a Moscow think-tank closely linked with the Putin administration,” and this one describes Sergei Markov as “a man who reportedly enjoys close connections with the Kremlin.” Markov, by the way, was one of the paid Russian advisors on the campaign team of Viktor Yanukovych, the Moscow-backed “winner” of the Ukrainian presidential election.”

Chrenkoff is rightly concerned about the possibility that this type of conspiracy mongering that was prevelant during the old Soviet regime may indeed be the start of something ominous in our relationship with Putin’s Russia. Let’s hope that the explanation is something more mundane…like moonbats giving voice to their rantings.

1. I’ve gotten extremely lazy. Consequently, my traffic is down about two thirds since the election. Back in the day, I was quite the comment spammer, leaving comments on a wide variety of topics at least a dozen or more times a day. Gotten lazy with trackbacks too. Fact is, as I’ve discovered, you have to work at this thing every day to see results. For those of you who DO visit, I’m grateful for your feedback and suggestions.

2. My makeshift, unergonomic computer station is actually causing me physical problems. Sitting at this desk 12-15 hours a day is causing my feet to swell, my back to hurt, and my eyes to burn. Thanks to our recent bit of incredible luck, significant Otherhawk and I have decided to get a brand new computer workstation. I’m also working towards getting off blogger and on to some real web hosting with professional design for the House. Hopefully, this will all be done by the first of the year.

I’m also in a quandary as to what this blog should evolve towards. Politics is my meat and potatoes. But the internecine battles in Congress bore me. That’s because in my experience, much of Congressional bickering is a question of personalities in conflict. Couple that with the fact that I’m NOT a policy wonk and political blogging becomes extremely limited. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I love the MECHANICS of politics…and that’s rarely interesting except during elections.

Space blogging is fun and I’ll continue to do that. I’d like to add some non-fiction book reviews and will also probably do that. I’ve never been a link whore but recognize its necessity while trying to build a site. Therefore, I’ll continue to link to other posts I find interesting and try to give my take on the current events they comment on.

The one HUGE variable here is Iran. I’m convinced that by mid-summer, George Bush will have to make the most important decision of not only his Presidency, but perhaps in the history of the US; he’s going to have to decide whether or not to take out Iran’s nuclear capacity before they can build a bomb. North Korea may resolve itself in the next few weeks (see this post by the Capn’ on some very strange goings on there). And we may yet have to take military action on the Korean peninsula to keep Pyongyang from using or transferring its ballistic missile technology. But Iran is the flashpoint.

BTW, I reject arguments that Iran or North Korea won’t attack us because they know we’d hit them back. In Iran’s case, deterrence doesn’t work unless the people you’re trying to deter care whether they live or die. Do the fanatics in Tehran fall into the former or latter category? Do you want to find out the hard way?

As for North Korea, suppose they launched one nuke and hit Seattle? (See this post from John Little on Kim’s new toy.) The very same people who are pooh-poohing the idea of a nuclear attack by Tehran or North Korea WOULD BE THE FIRST ONES IN THE STREET SCREAMING THAT WE SHOULDN’T RESPOND IN KIND! There would also be enormous pressure on us not to retaliate from Russia and China…both of whom could be affected by fall-out patterns. This much is clear…if Kim or the radioactive mullahs believe they can get away with, they’ll attack us in a New York minute.

Which brings me back to this blog. If Iran or North Korea heats up, there’s no doubt that I’ll write about it voluminously. If not, see a kind of strange mix of politics, science, history and occasional flashes of humor that have been the hallmark of this site since it began.

More than 3 years have passed since passengers and crew members of Flight #93 prevented terrorists from crashing that plane into the White House while bravely and unselfishly giving their lives so that others might live.

It’s time these passengers received the nation’s highest military award; the Congressional Medal of Honor.

a.) while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States;
b.) while engaged in military operations involving an opposing foreign force; or,
c.) while serving with friendly forces engaged in armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

Arguably, the passengers meet two of those criteria. They were engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States. And their attempt to take the plane back can easily be construed as a “military operation.”

So why haven’t we seen any action on this? Why hasn’t the President or Congress done anything?

At the very least, these citizens deserve Congressional Gold Medals for “distinguished service and achievement.” But none has been forthcoming. And the reason, I believe is political.

The reasoning goes like this: If you give medals to the passengers of flight #93, why not medals to the firemen and policemen who perished on that awful day? And why stop there? Why not give one to everyone who died as a result of those attacks?

While I certainly do not wish to begrudge anything to the heroes who gave their lives at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, I believe a distinction can and should be made for the passengers of that plane who found themselves in a situation rare in American history.

We know from transcripts that passengers had actually taken a vote on whether or not to attack the hijackers. We also know the names of some of the leaders of that effort. And while recognizing that not all passengers participated equally in the plan to storm the cockpit, we should acknowledge the sacrifice of all who were aboard.

We should all urge that politics be put aside and that the heroes of Flight #93 be honored for their courage and valor.

Rather has worked at CBS News for more than 40 years and made his name as a reporter covering the Nixon White House. His nearly quarter-century at the helm of the CBS Evening News is the longest at the helm of any U.S. network evening broadcast

Since everyone and their brother is blogging about Dan’s failings, let me take a moment to reflect on Mr. Rather’s successes.

First, Dan Rather was a decent man. If television shows people for who they really are, warts and all, Dan Rather came across as someone with core values that were truly middle American in their origins. His much criticized colloquialisms became something of a parody of themselves in later years as script writers were used to generate them. But, IMHO, there was no better newsman during his era when the American people turned to the broadcast nets in time of national crisis.

Rather’s career was made on November 22, 1963 when, working with CBS’s Southern Bureau he reported on the death of JFK. His famous confrontation with President Nixon (Nixon: “Are you running for something?” Rather: “No, Mr. President, are you?”) endeared him to liberals and outraged conservatives who believed that Rather had demonstrated bias in his reporting. This bias was exposed on more than one occasion…but more than that, Rather’s skills as a reporter and his relentless pursuit of the “story” (not necessarily the truth) marked him as a journalist to watch.

In 1981 when Rather apparently forced Walter Cronkite into retirement, he took over the network anchor chair. Within a month, Rather was to prove himself a worthy replacement as he anchored the network’s coverage of the Reagan assassination attempt. At the time, Rather was praised for his level headed commentary. As I recall, his colloquies with on-site reporters were particularly good. “What do we know? What do we think we know?” became Rather’s bywords during times of national crisis.

But I believe Rather’s finest moments came during coverage of the attack on 9/11. He was careful without being understated. His outrage and patriotism came through loud and clear. (He had a tremble in his voice after watching House members sing God Bless America on the steps of the Capitol that day.)

As for his attitude towards the war in Afghanistan, here’s a quote he gave in an interview to Howard Kurtz of WAPO:

“What I want to do, I want to fulfill my role as a decent human member of the community and a decent and patriotic American. And therefore, I am willing to give the government, the President and the military the benefit of any doubt here in the beginning. I’m going to fulfill my role as a journalist, and that is ask the questions, when necessary ask the tough questions. But I have no excuse for, particularly when there is a national crisis such as this, as saying—you know, the President says do your job, whatever you are and whomever you are, Mr. and Mrs. America. I’m going to do my job as a journalist, but at the same time I will give them the benefit of the doubt, whenever possible in this kind of crisis, emergency situation. Not because I am concerned about any backlash. I’m not. But because I want to be a patriotic American without apology.”

Clearly, Dan Rather is no anti-American zealot. And while his coverage of the war in Iraq has recently been tinged with echoes of media coverage of Viet Nam, this is how Rather sees his job; talking truth to power. This attitude is, I believe, what blinded him and allowed his partisanship to bring him down in the Rathergate scandal.

Rather and Tom Brokaw are probably the last of the immediate post World War II generation of broadcasters whose attitudes towards and coverage of America were shaped by that conflict (Peter Jennings is Canadian). This next generation will have had their attitudes shaped by Viet Nam and Watergate.